Kindly explain how Intelligent Design Theory in the classroom would interfere with a study of the ToE.

How does ID interfere with the teaching of the ToE?

For one thing, it's a religiously-motivated hypothesis demanding equal weight with a theory that has proven its value in the real world. It teaches students the myth that wishful thinking and "what-if" scenarios are equal to cold, hard facts, and that they can choose one or the other with no hard consequences.

It muddies the waters. It's analogous to saying "2+2=4, but in an alternate universe 2+2 might equal 5, or 6, or watermelons."

ID also cannot be considered a scientific theory until it starts to make accurate predictions based on known facts. If it can't do that, why teach it at all?

A teacher's attitude towards the subject can strongly influence which viewpoint the student ultimately accepts. Unless there is constant monitoring in the classroom, or a non-believing student complains, there's nothing to stop a teacher from waxing poetic that there must be a designer (because pussycats and flowers and lah-dee-dah), and "Oh, I have to teach you this evolution crap too but we'll just do that till recess."

Finally, this whole debate is apples-and-oranges. Intelligent Design is all about origins, whereas evolution is about how existing organisms change over time. ID is in the wrong science course from the start -- It should really be in a graduate-level Biochemistry unit on abiogenesis, where it would get the respect it truly deserves.

You do realize that scientists never know anything with 100% certainty, don't you? That means that Dr. Houssaye - who by the way is a paleontologist, thus why she's studying fossilized snakes - was saying that we don't know the exact fossil record of snakes very well yet. However, that does not mean that scientists are not reasonably certain[1] that snakes are descended from lizards. That's because scientists do not rely on one single source of knowledge. Morphology, phylogeny, biochemistry, and genetics all point at snakes having a common ancestor in the lizard family somewhere. We just don't know for sure which one it is, thus Dr. Houssave's comments.

While I'll grant that textbook manufacturers are not always very good at putting things the way scientists would put them, to pick something like this - a textbook saying that scientists knowing something, then trying to make the case that they don't know because all the holes haven't been filled in yet - as your example seems more than a bit ludicrous. Honestly, it comes across as you trying to find excuses to justify what you already believe.

The textbook did not contain Dr Houssaye's comments....if that's what you gathered from my post. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The reference to Dr Houssaye's findings was something I inserted in the post....it was not in the textbook.

Is that the only inaccuracy you think you found in the biology books? Let's see the others shall we?

I could provide others but how many is necessary in order for the textbook to become deficient and misleading? Is it three, four, ten ? Some of the books I viewed had references to microevolution vs. macroevolution which the ToE community contends has no meaningful distinction. Many instances of 'origins of life' teachings mixed in with evolution as well. Archaeopteryx as the proven missing link between dinosaurs and birds? Claiming that it is well known that the first humans originated in Africa?....and on and on.

My point is that I do not see anyone barking about some of the false ToE teachings in the mainstream texts but God helps us all if there is a hint of Intelligent Design Theory being taught somewhere....then the wolves come out.

Some of the books I viewed had references to microevolution vs. macroevolution which the ToE community contends has no meaningful distinction.

That sounds rather suspicious in itself, as if the textbook was trying to placate creationists. It's been many years since I read a biology textbook, so can someone with more current knowledge of school textbooks add insight here?

Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking. The snake is bound to be related to the lizard or something very like it even if we haven't the complete details yet. School text books have to make fairly short points and they haven't the space to be technical papers for science conferences.

The same applies to the other points you raise. I haven't see origins of life in a textbook on Evolution but if is conceivable that something might be included for completeness.The fact is that nothing is science is 100% sure so, if you had your way, the books would be empty but then,. of course, the bible classes would have empty books as that stuff is even less known. heck, we don't even know who wrote the various books in the bible!

All you mention are rough approximations to our present knowledge which is enough for students of that age. If they choose to go further then of course they will get all the details.

As an aside, when I was at school in the 60's we were told that the proton, neutron and electron were the basic particles of matter and no mention was made of QED and we used merely wave theory for light. This is, in your terms, wrong but it wasn't so far wrong as to spoil our education. Those who went on to university will have had to learn the whole grizzly truth of the maths in QED and the zoo of basic particles but you could hardly expect school students to face that, could you.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Kindly explain how Intelligent Design Theory in the classroom would interfere with a study of the ToE.

How does ID interfere with the teaching of the ToE?

For one thing, it's a religiously-motivated hypothesis demanding equal weight with a theory that has proven its value in the real world. It teaches students the myth that wishful thinking and "what-if" scenarios are equal to cold, hard facts, and that they can choose one or the other with no hard consequences.

That's nonsense. I have known and taught dozens of junior and senior high school students who have been taught the ToE and remain devout Christians. They are not as shallow as you perceive them to be.

Quote

It muddies the waters. It's analogous to saying "2+2=4, but in an alternate universe 2+2 might equal 5, or 6, or watermelons."

ID also cannot be considered a scientific theory until it starts to make accurate predictions based on known facts. If it can't do that, why teach it at all?

A teacher's attitude towards the subject can strongly influence which viewpoint the student ultimately accepts. Unless there is constant monitoring in the classroom, or a non-believing student complains, there's nothing to stop a teacher from waxing poetic that there must be a designer (because pussycats and flowers and lah-dee-dah), and "Oh, I have to teach you this evolution crap too but we'll just do that till recess."

Finally, this whole debate is apples-and-oranges. Intelligent Design is all about origins, whereas evolution is about how existing organisms change over time. ID is in the wrong science course from the start -- It should really be in a graduate-level Biochemistry unit on abiogenesis, where it would get the respect it truly deserves.

With all due respect, I question the level of knowledge you possess about Intelligent Design Theory because it can and does make accurate predictions.

Sure. I'll give you an example from one of my kids books that I had discussed in an earlier thread:

"Biology- Understanding Life" – Alters & Alters - copyright 2006.

As always, I no more than flipped it open to page 251 where a new chapter starts and am immediately drawn to strange claim made in the first paragraph. The chapter is titled “Beyond Darwinism: A Genetic Basis of Evolution.” The very first sentence in the chapter says “Scientists know that snakes evolved from ancient lizards.”

Minor point:The chapter is actually called "Beyond Darwin: A Genetic Basis of Evolution"

Out of curiosity, did you at all go through chapter 2: How Scientists Do Their Work?

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

You say false and misleading. How would you phrase the text to make it fit your view of things? It is going to have to be a very few changes but have a go.

While you are at it, please state some prediction made by ID theory.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Sure. I'll give you an example from one of my kids books that I had discussed in an earlier thread:

"Biology- Understanding Life" – Alters & Alters - copyright 2006.

As always, I no more than flipped it open to page 251 where a new chapter starts and am immediately drawn to strange claim made in the first paragraph. The chapter is titled “Beyond Darwinism: A Genetic Basis of Evolution.” The very first sentence in the chapter says “Scientists know that snakes evolved from ancient lizards.”

Minor point:The chapter is actually called "Beyond Darwin: A Genetic Basis of Evolution"

Out of curiosity, did you at all go through chapter 2: How Scientists Do Their Work?

Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

You say false and misleading. How would you phrase the text to make it fit your view of things? It is going to have to be a very few changes but have a go.

I simply would have presented it as a popular hypotheses.

Quote

While you are at it, please state some prediction made by ID theory.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.http://www.evolutionnews.org

The textbook did not contain Dr Houssaye's comments....if that's what you gathered from my post. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The reference to Dr Houssaye's findings was something I inserted in the post....it was not in the textbook.

I figured that out right away, actually. You were complaining because the textbook authors said that scientists knew that snakes were descended from lizards, and used the article referencing Dr. Houssave and her work to undercut what the textbook wrote. My actual point was that Dr. Houssave herself had no doubt that snakes were descended from lizards; what she wrote was that they didn't know all the details yet, such as whether it was an aquatic lizard or a land-dwelling lizard, and that she didn't expect scientists would nail down exactly which lizard species very quickly.

In other words, it didn't actually undercut the textbook's statement that scientists knew that snakes had descended from lizards - it just stated that we didn't know for sure exactly which lizard species was the forbear of snakes, and that we likely wouldn't know for some time. As I stated, we have plenty of other evidence that supports snakes having descended from lizards. We don't need every last detail in place to be able to figure out more general information, just as a person working on a puzzle doesn't need every piece in place to figure out what the puzzle is showing.

In short, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt - which is about as far as science can go - that snakes are descended from lizards. What hasn't been proven is exactly what lizard species snakes descended from. For you to claim that it is deficient and misleading for a science textbook to state that snakes descended from lizards by using a scientist's statement that we don't know for sure which lizard species it was (and aren't likely to know within the decade) is a lot closer to actually being deficient and misleading in my opinion.

In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if evolution textbooks were actually deficient and misleading (which neither you nor anyone else has actually shown), that wouldn't excuse or justify Responsive Education Solutions having written its own deficient and misleading textbooks for various charter schools. That would just make matters worse for students.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.http://www.evolutionnews.org

First off, none of those really predict anything meaningful. They're so general as to be practically useless - it's like saying that something predicts that the sun will rise and fall, without giving us a reason why that matters for your hypothesis.

Second, those are pretty much ad hoc - that is to say, off-the-cuff 'predictions' that aren't really related to each other, or anything else.

And third, they don't do a thing to advance your hypothesis. Intelligent design is certainly not the only reason that those things could have happened, which means that as predictions, they are summarily useless for advancing intelligent design.

For a scientific prediction to be useful, you have to do what's referred to as "solving for" in math. You have to isolate the thing you're trying to associate with the prediction - for example, if you were to predict that a certain flower would react to sunlight by opening its petals, it's not enough to show that it does open its petals when sunlight shines on it. You would also have to show that it didn't react to bright lights (like moonlight, or a spotlight). And then, you have to come up with the best reason why it does that. That's where intelligent design inevitably falls short - because it invents the reason in advance, and tries to fit things into that already-existing reason, which makes it much too complicated to be useful, much like trying to describe the solar system orbits from a geocentric perspective.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.http://www.evolutionnews.org

1. thanks for the copy n paste job. I read those on another website already.

2. Those are not predictions. A prediction is a statement that is not known to be true before experiments are set up to test it. You know, like Prof Higgs and the bosun - he predicted it in 1963 and it was found last year! Those items are someone looking at what we know and working backwards. I take it you don't have any actual predictions (where the predicter didn't already know the outcome) do you?

incidentally, your No 1 has been disproved so successfully that I am amazed that it even figures in the list.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

That sounds rather suspicious in itself, as if the textbook was trying to placate creationists. It's been many years since I read a biology textbook, so can someone with more current knowledge of school textbooks add insight here?

I just dug out my BIO 101 book from last semester. It defines microevolution as change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. Macroevolution is defined as large-scale evolutionary change, such as the formation of a new species. The book never described it as micro vs macro, but rather that macroevolution is the result of microevolution's accumulation. This comes from the 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc textbook.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.http://www.evolutionnews.org

I find it odd that the article claims that ID is not a claim "that life is so complex, it could not have evolved, therefore it was designed by a supernatural intelligence" only to conclude that ID is a claim "that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence."

All I see there is the author of the article saying ID isn't a simple logicical fallacy, it's a complex logical fallacy.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.http://www.evolutionnews.org

I find it odd that the article claims that ID is not a claim "that life is so complex, it could not have evolved, therefore it was designed by a supernatural intelligence" only to conclude that ID is a claim "that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence."

All I see there is the author of the article saying ID isn't a simple logical fallacy, it's a complex logical fallacy.

I also find it odd that the article at evolutionnews.org uses the word for word description of the scientific method from intelligentdesign.org.

From evolutionnews.org :

ID uses the scientific method to make its claims. This method is commonly described as a four-step process of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

From intelligentdesign.org :

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

I'm suspicious of why the scientific method is being simplified this way. I'm also suspicious of the use of conclusions. Conclusions are generally used to form another hypothesis which can lead to additional predictions that can be tested.It appears that ID is simply ending at conclusions as if "that's it, all done".

If ID were really using the scientific method, it would be able to make additional predictions. Eventually, once ID gets to the conclusion of an intelligent designer or agent then suddenly observation, hypothesis and experiments stop. If your conclusion leads to something that can't be observed or tested then something is wrong with the hypothesis or processes used during previous observation and experiments.

If you would like to learn about what the scientific method really is, I suggest reading the information found in the following websites:

I also find it odd that the article at evolutionnews.org uses the word for word description of the scientific method from intelligentdesign.org.

From evolutionnews.org :

ID uses the scientific method to make its claims. This method is commonly described as a four-step process of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

From intelligentdesign.org :

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

I'm suspicious of why the scientific method is being simplified this way. I'm also suspicious of the use of conclusions. Conclusions are generally used to form another hypothesis which can lead to additional predictions that can be tested.It appears that ID is simply ending at conclusions as if "that's it, all done".

If ID were really using the scientific method, it would be able to make additional predictions. Eventually, once ID gets to the conclusion of an intelligent designer or agent then suddenly observation, hypothesis and experiments stop. If your conclusion leads to something that can't be observed or tested then something is wrong with the hypothesis or processes used during previous observation and experiments.

If you would like to learn about what the scientific method really is, I suggest reading the information found in the following websites:

Science - because it works. Anything else is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

BS - One day you could potentially afford to know what to pray for in advance to try and fix in your body well before you're diagnosed with it. You can stick with ID all you want but the wave of science and knowledge is growing everyday. Why you accept willful ignorance as the status quo others will ride the wave of science.

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

These are hypotheses that I will concede make for a strong argument, no doubt. Still, I have concerns about going so far as to say that snake evolution is a settled matter and that we can conclude the morphology and DNA analyses PROVES "snakes from lizards." The origins of snakes is not a settled matter and some of the material in the links concedes that.

I appreciate you sharing the links. That is not easy material to read and understand.

Science - because it works. Anything else is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

BS - One day you could potentially afford to know what to pray for in advance to try and fix in your body well before you're diagnosed with it. You can stick with ID all you want but the wave of science and knowledge is growing everyday. Why you accept willful ignorance as the status quo others will ride the wave of science.

I fail to see your point. Your comments and the links you provided seem to imply that you think I am 100% anti-ToE....and that couldn't be further from the truth.

I just find it perplexing that some of you all don't show the same amount of passion for the lies being taught about evolution in the school system. When was the last time you picked up a high school or college biology text and critiqued it for accuracy?

We haven't had time to fix anything because idiots keep us occupied with their stupidity.

Stop trying to ruin everything and then we'll have a chance deal with the details.

And by the way, about the only thing taught accurately in high school is math. And perhaps English. Everything else is simplified, watered down and basic, because the education system isn't designed to teach. It is designed to keep students busy until they can be assimilated into the employment world. Those of us against teaching non-subjects like creationism would be better utilized as fixers of a broken system. But fund's want to make it even worse, so we have to concentrate our energies there.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

These are hypotheses that I will concede make for a strong argument, no doubt. Still, I have concerns about going so far as to say that snake evolution is a settled matter and that we can conclude the morphology and DNA analyses PROVES "snakes from lizards." The origins of snakes is not a settled matter and some of the material in the links concedes that.

I appreciate you sharing the links. That is not easy material to read and understand.

They're more than just mere hypotheses. The word hypothesis implies, if not strongly implies, that it isn't backed by evidence, and those articles - found off of the first two pages of a Google search - are backed by a lot of evidence. If I had been so inclined, I could have found dozens of articles instead of just three. And that's what really matters in science, how much evidence backs a proposed explanation. If there's a lot of evidence in favor of something, and I believe there is plenty when it comes to snakes descending from lizards, then it doesn't work to try to dismiss it as a mere hypothesis, as if it were nothing but the author's conclusions.

The reason the question of snake evolution isn't fully settled is not because scientists seriously doubt that snakes descended from lizards, but because we don't have enough information (yet) to fully trace the line which that descent took. We face a similar problem in tracing the line of our own descent from the primate family, but that doesn't mean that scientists seriously doubt that humans descended from primates. So trying to hammer a science textbook because it says that scientists know that snakes descended from lizards, when in fact scientists do know that snakes descended from lizards, doesn't exactly strike me as reasonable. And trying to suggest that the question of snake origins isn't settled - implying that they aren't actually sure of whether snakes are descended from lizards, even though that's not what the actual articles are saying - doesn't strike me as reasonable either.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of information that you aren't sure of, but trying to present the information that you do have in a manner that makes it look like it supports your skepticism when it really doesn't tends to undercut your argument. You don't look like someone who isn't sure but is looking for more information, you look like someone who is bound and determined to draw specific conclusions from the information you do have regardless of how much you have to...'massage' it to make it fit those conclusions.